Ranteesi v. Grounds

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/29/10: Petitioner's April 8, 2010 amended motion to stay is denied 12 and that the unexhausted claims in the amended petition are stricken. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(HC) Ranteesi v. Grounds Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. RANDY GROUNDS, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 21, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SIMON F. RANTEESI, Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-0439 GEB GGH P ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 21, 2010, are adopted in full; and 2. Petitioner's April 8, 2010 amended motion to stay (Docket No. 12) is denied and that the unexhausted claims in the amended petition are stricken. Dated: June 29, 2010 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?